Professional Documents
Culture Documents
between authority and liberty. He argues that people are enjoying much of their free
will. In this paper, I will argue that this argument fails because people are never free.
argument in favor of respecting liberty, to the degree that it does not harm anybody
else. This harm principle holds that the actions of individuals should only be limited
to prevent harm to others. The example Mill uses is in reference to corn dealers: he
suggests that it is acceptable to claim that corn dealers starve the poor if such a
mob, ready to explode, that has gathered outside the house of the corn dealer. The
place the rights, and possibly the life, of the corn dealer in danger.
So far so good. However, Mill further claims that silencing people is in one way
or another counterproductive, not just for society generally, but for the silencers in
The character of Mills arguments for free discussion is useful in this context.
As a utilitarian Mill rejects the idea of natural rights, and emphasizes that society as
a whole, not just the silenced individual, loses by the repression of free discussion.
But this means that the social majority, which is the source of the oppressive public
opinion that Mill fears, also loses by repression (Cartwright, 2003). I will not be
addressing all of Mills arguments for liberty and utilitarianism. Instead, I will
examine what I take him believe is the strongest one: the argument that free will
Today, the faith of free will runs through each part of politics, from welfare
provision to criminal law. It passes through our culture and furthermore underpins
regardless of what is their status in life. Likewise, Barack Obama composed in The
Audacity of Hope, Values are rooted in a basic optimism about life and a faith in
free will.
The sciences have grown steadily bolder in their claim that all human behavior
can be explained through the clockwork laws of cause and effect. This shift in
Are our actions the unfolding effect of our genetics? Or the outcome of what
the importance of each factor. Whether scientists supported one, the other, or a mix
of both, they increasingly assumed that our deeds must be determined by something.
So our ability to choose our fate is not free, but depends on our biological
inheritance.
In recent decades, research on the inner workings of the brain has helped to
resolve the programmed-brain debateand has dealt a further blow to the idea of
free will. Brain scanners have enabled us to peer inside a living persons skull,
agreement that these networks are shaped by both genes and environment. But
there is also agreement in the scientific community that the firing of neurons
determines not just some or most but all of our thoughts, hopes, memories, and
dreams.
no such thing as free will in the first place so people are and will never be free.